Glacial isostatic adjustment associated with the Barents Sea ice sheet: A modelling inter-comparison

Accepted manuscript version. Published version available in Quaternary Science Reviews (2016) 147, p.122-135. The 3D geometrical evolution of the Barents Sea Ice Sheet (BSIS), particularly during its late-glacial retreat phase, remains largely ambiguous due to the paucity of direct marine- and terre...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Quaternary Science Reviews
Main Authors: Auriac, Amandine, Whitehouse, P.L., Bentley, M.J., Patton, Henry, Lloyd, J.M., Hubbard, Alun Lloyd
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2016
Subjects:
Glacial isostatic adjustment modelling
Ice sheet
Barents Sea
Relative sea level
VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Geofag: 450
VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Geosciences: 450
Franz Josef Land
Norway
Svalbard
Arctic
Ice Sheet
Northern Norway
Novaya Zemlya
Sea ice
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10037/12882
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.02.011
Description
Summary:Accepted manuscript version. Published version available in Quaternary Science Reviews (2016) 147, p.122-135. The 3D geometrical evolution of the Barents Sea Ice Sheet (BSIS), particularly during its late-glacial retreat phase, remains largely ambiguous due to the paucity of direct marine- and terrestrial-based evidence constraining its horizontal and vertical extent and chronology. One way of validating the numerous BSIS reconstructions previously proposed is to collate and apply them under a wide range of Earth models and to compare prognostic (isostatic) output through time with known relative sea-level (RSL) data. Here we compare six contrasting BSIS load scenarios via a spherical Earth system model and derive a best-fit, χ2 parameter using RSL data from the four main terrestrial regions within the domain: Svalbard, Franz Josef Land, Novaya Zemlya and northern Norway. Poor χ2 values allow two load scenarios to be dismissed, leaving four that agree well with RSL observations. The remaining four scenarios optimally fit the RSL data when combined with Earth models that have an upper mantle viscosity of 0.2–2 × 1021 Pa s, while there is less sensitivity to the lithosphere thickness (ranging from 71 to 120 km) and lower mantle viscosity (spanning 1–50 × 1021 Pa s). GPS observations are also compared with predictions of present-day uplift across the Barents Sea. Key locations where relative sea-level and GPS data would prove critical in constraining future ice-sheet modelling efforts are also identified.

Similar Items